Anything at all.
Elon Musk
Mosquitoes. Fuck mosquitoes.
Uncured bacon doesn’t exist. It’s a lie. Uncured bacon is cured with celery nitrates and nitrites instead of synthetic nitrates and nitrites. It is all cured bacon.
And that’s fine. If people want a more naturally cured bacon that tastes worse and has zero health benefits, and costs more, calling it “uncured” is still deceptive. It’s also crowding out the actual bacon market on the low end.
Canadian here. uncured bacon is pork belly. This is really a thing this cured “uncured” pork?
Yes, American grocery stores sell a product called “uncured bacon.” It’s bacon cured with celery juice, which is a natural source of nitrates. You can also buy pork belly if you have the right butcher.
if you have the right butcher.
Costco
Sometimes my grocery store also has it, but in a specialty meats section. I didn’t want to presume that every store would. I’ve heard good things about Costco but I don’t live near enough to one to justify a membership.
I don’t think people are eating bacon for the health benefits
No, but people buy the “uncured” bacon because they think it is slightly less bad for them. It isn’t.
French bulldogs
Also pugs. Really just any animal bred to have a smooshed face
For-profit medical care.
Piggybacking for-profit prisons.
Public transport too. It really seems like every time a public service is privatised it goes to shit, almost as if for-profit motives aren’t aligned to public interest.
For profit education
Apartheid Linux
Why? Never heard of it but it seems similar to Tails. I’d rather use Tails than something I’ve never heard about, but is there anything inherently wrong with it?
It’s basically Tails with a white supremacist theme added.
Cars. They are everywhere and are like cigarettes. Addictive, bad for our environment and bad for ourselves.
And we even try to keep using them as long as possible by switching to an electric version, just like cigarettes. “But it’s electric, it can’t be that bad!”
Humanity is not running to its doom, it’s taking a car.
Change “cars” to “personal vehicle” and you’ve got a winner. We still want delivery drivers and taxis and such. What we want to do is avoid the use of a car when it’s unnecessary, and that really leaves those who practice a trade/service and need to transport their tools. Heck, most could probably use a cargo bike.
What would you use in place of cars?
Obviously just outlawing cars tomorrow would cause mass deaths around the world as society isn’t equipped to deal with it, so what could we transition to?
My assumption is that you’d suggest public transport for all? But that wouldn’t save us, as only about 1/4 of transport emissions come from cars, it’d just make us die a little slower.
Edit: if the next 5 people to downvote this could leave a reply it’d be appreciated. I try my best to do my bit for the environment but I depend on my car to participate in my local community given, and so I’d like to know what the ideal solution is? What should I be asking my representative to be voting for?
LOL nobody said that tomorrow they would be outlawed. People are saying that we can undo the damage that was caused by 70 years of Boomers and their parents who destroyed the world in the name of the open road and “freedom”. It was an aberration and we’ll be returning back to how things were prior.
Saying it isnt worth up to a 25% reduction is a stupid argument in general.
Lets also not forget about all the money and resources spent on cars and their infrastructure.
Up to a 25% reduction in emissions at minimum is enough to be worthy of action.
if you design a city with the assumption that people won’t have cars, you can make it easier to bike and walk to most of the things you need. This kind of urban design is superior to the car centered urban design in that it’s cheaper, healthier, safer, and more environmentaly friendly.
So which city are we going to tear down and rebuild first? And we have to come up with some new laws, like you can only own a home that’s within walking/biking distance of your work.
We had a taste of a viable alternative, thanks to the pandemic. Remote work - it accomplishes most of what you propose without totally ditching private transportation. Maybe we should make that a law - business has to show that physical presence is required or they must allow employees to work remotely.
What if you don’t live in a city? We are country folk and operate a farm that feeds you city folks. Cities can’t exist with out us back woods country folk. Our “car” works every day.
I’m talking about urban design. If you live on a farm, this doesn’t apply to you. However, it does apply to the 98% of people in America who don’t live on farms.
Nobody is suggesting that you put a light rail out to the local farm. The urban area will be urban and the rural area will be rural. Where work is needed is connecting up the suburbs and ensuring that you can get to your places of work/school/etc without driving. Some cities never deconstructed themselves for cars (see SF/NYC) and are doing well. Other cities (see Cincinnati, OKC, etc) have room to grow.
Actual country folk are less then 15% of the US. You are probably talking about Suburbs or Exurb dwellers, and those shouldn’t exit.
singapore is doing this kind of city design already why can’t others follow
As a person that hates cars, I still have to disagree. For transportation of goods (like building materials) and in remote areas, they are sometimes the only efficient form of transport.
Obviously: fuck cars.
Billionaires
I bet you’d have quite a different opinion if someone gave you a couple billion
I’ll bet you’re incorrect.
Depends on the currency, though…
Disagree.
Fake chocolate flavors.
I have never heard of that. Is this something like Mockolate in that one Friends episode?
In the same vein but two completely different ends of the spectrum: Nestle and most American chocolate because it tastes gross
Injustice.
(Please clap.)
America’s Got Talent. For the past ten seasons, it’s been as much a talent show as The Curse of Oak Island is a show about historical accuracy.
Wtf oak island is awesome
Yeah, but don’t you think they exaggerate some of the historical elements even a little? At one point, they used their unrealistically diverse artifact collection (with bobby-dazzlers made from everywhere except China) to promote the idea the ancient Romans discovered Canada (Rome was barely aware of even Iceland).
the nsa, prc and woke ideology
Tax exemption for religious organisations.
Taxing religious organizations gives them official representation in government affairs which is just as bad, if not worse.
Please elaborate…
Like, do you think McDonald’s as a corporation gets to vote?
Do you think priests and preachers don’t get to vote now?
I’m guessing the way its suppose to work is tax exemption means you should apolitical like a think tank lol
Not taxing them hasn’t kept their fingers out of the American government.
Far from it.
Hell, the current speaker is trying to convince everyone that the government was always intended to be based on religious dogma.
Definitely not how that works. All companies are taxed and they don’t get any special representation outside lobbying that they were going to do either way and churches do in fact put a lot of the money they should have payed in taxes into lobbying.
companies don’t get any special representation
Lmao
To some degree, agreed, but your original assertion is still wrong. Unless you count all the devoutly religious people in Congress, and they already have that representation.
Their paying taxes is not what gets them special treatment.
No, but well-connected companies use regulatory capture to structure taxes as a burden on their competition.
Consider for a moment how churches would be taxed. Maybe they are taxed on their assets. That would disproportionately affect larger churches with valuable real estate holdings, like the Catholic and Mormon churches. Maybe the donations they receive are taxed. That disadvantages newer churches which don’t have corporate investments or endowments. Tax land? Hurt cemeteries. Tax salaries? Favor Quaker meeting houses where there is no specific pastor.
Look, I don’t think churches should be involved in politics. Any that donate to candidates or endorse a party should lose their tax exempt status, because they are no longer churches. But a blanket removal of all tax exemptions for religious organizations is a threat to religious freedom. It would allow the religious leaders in government to play favorites and pick winners, kind of like they do now already.
yes, freedom of religion can only exist with in perpetuity tax free landownership
hahaha
Is that what I said?
Tax code is applied by politicians. Do you really expect Christian Conservatives to fairly tax Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus at the same rates as their own churches? Freedom of Religion cannot exist when political leaders are able to tax competing religions into oblivion.
You don’t think certain companies get favorable treatment via tax code and lobbying?
I think certain companies don’t pay any taxes at all.
deleted by creator
Could be worse, I guess. I live in a “secular” democracy that essentially collects members fees for the Catholic and Lutheran churches (and only those two!) via the federal income tax.
In Germany, state-recognized churches collect taxes from their members in order to finance their activities as well as wages. Everyone who is a member of an officially recognized religious group automatically gets a percentage of their monthly wage taken from their paycheck. Usually, this amounts to around 9% of income tax — with the exception of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, where the church tax amounts to 8%.
For native Germans, church tax is often automatically collected. Many Germans are baptized at a young age and thereby become members of a particular church, which means they pay taxes to that church when they begin to earn income as an adult.
If you’re a foreigner moving to Germany, you can declare your affiliation to a church when you register at your local citizen’s office.
9%? That’s absurd. Is there a way to remove yourself from this?
You can only resign from being part of the church, which many young people do once they see this on their first paycheck.
Is there a way to remove yourself from this?
Sure: There is a third box “no confession” next to “Catholic” and “Protestant” on the form. You can check that and those 9% remain with the state instead.
German secularism has a few more peculiarities. Many charitable organizations e.g. running hospitals or institutions caring for the homeless, elderly, and disabled are in fact religious (Diakonie, Johanniter, Caritas, Stadtmission, …). This has some unfortunate effects: They often hire people of Christian faith only, meaning atheists or adherents of other religions are mostly excluded at these organizations. There have also been cases of a doctor at a Christian-run hospital denying the abortion because of their faith – despite abortion being legal here. However, much of the money these organizations receive is in fact public money, supposedly spent on serving the public. Another wrinkle is that Religious Law is used when it comes to e.g. prosecuting rape cases involving priests etc. Somehow, this separate system of law that doesn’t really seem to work particularly well is accepted by the German state.
Just want to clarify: It is 9% of the income tax, not 9% of the income. Still too high, but not as absurd as some people may think after reading this incorrectly. I know some people who thought that it is 9% of the income although they were paying church tax for years…
Honestly I didn’t realize that. That does make it a bit more reasonable but it’s still a lot of the income tax. But the other explanations I’ve read sort of make it make sense. Churches were the original social services for the needy and Germany basically coopted the model into their tax system - rather than tearing down religious hospitals or making them private.
I get it, but it’s also weird!
Knew it was DE before I saw the instance domain.
Or better yet, religious organizations.
Marketing
The only departement you don’t really need, except your competitors have one, so now you need one too.
And the problem for me is not with a simple ad for the local grocery store. It’s when they made a science out of influencing people and targeting specific groups and working on your subconscious.
I would like to think that I’m not affect by marketing. But the truth is that we all are being led by subtle marketing too, not just the obvious marketing.
So in a way, they affect the choices I make and I don’t want anybody but me to make the choices.
Obviously marketing is not going away now. If anything, it will only get more intrusive and intense. I hate marketing…
There is a subtle, but important, difference between letting people know your product exists or improved, and brainwashing people into buying your product.
Is a grocery saleman at the local saturday market allowed to shout about the sale he is doing on strawberries? Because that is also marketing.
I fully agree that the average advertisement you see on youtube is pure cancer. But what about an advertisement for an emergency fund for a disaster?
What about a sponsored video of a game?
Where do you draw the line?
